Lustig v. Garcia, 4D00-1479.
| Decision Date | 05 July 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D00-1479.,4D00-1479. |
| Citation | 789 So.2d 482 |
| Parties | Arnold LUSTIG, Appellant, v. Alina GARCIA, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert J. Slotkin, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
The final judgment is reversed.
Lustig brought suit against Garcia for imposition of an equitable lien and sought restitution for unjust enrichment. In the course of the non-jury trial, the court erred by involuntarily dismissing the case before the plaintiff (Lustig) had rested. The court also erred in basing the dismissal on a credibility assessment.
Lustig testified during his case-in-chief. During cross-examination, the defense established that Lustig earns his living gambling and that he pays no federal income or social security taxes on that income. After some additional impeachment, the trial judge sua sponte dismissed the complaint, stating:
The court then indicated that the defense had prevailed. At that point, Lustig's attorney attempted to address the trial court but was interrupted by the court who essentially told the attorney to take it up with the appellate court. The trial court then terminated the proceedings. Lustig had not resumed re-direct examination or rested his case. Final judgment was entered in favor of Garcia.
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(b), provides, in pertinent part:
(b) Involuntary Dismissal.... After a party seeking affirmative relief in an action tried by the court without a jury has completed the presentation of evidence, any other party may move for a dismissal on the ground that on the facts and the law the party seeking affirmative relief has shown no right to relief, without waiving the right to offer evidence if the motion is not granted. The court as trier of the facts may then determine them and render judgment against the party seeking affirmative relief or may decline to render judgment until the close of all the evidence.
Applying this rule, we have held that an involuntary dismissal may not be entered before the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence. See SJS Enters. v. Cates, 547 So.2d 226 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). See also Akdoruk v. Advanced Jet Sys., Inc., 296 So.2d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Sapp v. Redding, 178 So.2d 204, 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965).1
Further, even if Lustig had rested, it is well-established that in ruling on a motion for involuntary dismissal, a trial judge may not weigh the evidence or the credibility of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
BOCA GOLF VIEW, LTD., v. Hughes Hall, Inc.
...in a jury trial, an involuntary dismissal is appropriate if the plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie case. See Lustig v. Garcia, 789 So.2d 482, 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Miller v. Nifakos, 655 So.2d 192, 193 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). To rule on the motion for involuntary dismissal, the tria......
-
Ransom v. Grant-Van Brocklin
...of evidence. See e.g., Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Santiago, 117 So. 3d 1146, 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) ; Lustig v. Garcia, 789 So. 2d 482, 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Denying plaintiff the opportunity to complete his or her case-in-chief is a denial of due process. A.N. v. M.F.-A., 946 So. ......
- Wallace v. State, 4D01-1110.
-
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Gonzalez
...court commits reversible error when it orders an involuntary dismissal before the plaintiff has rested its case. See Lustig v. Garcia, 789 So.2d 482, 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (holding that "an involuntary dismissal may not be entered before the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his......